Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. Like I mentioned before, we just have different views.

No need to argue. I wanted to finish stating the reasons I have for the delineation I have made. Moreover I am honestly interested in what specifically, for example, makes Star Wars (any of the six films really) fantasy rather than SF? I get that the "Force" (in isolation) is a fantasy element (though I am not certain it has to be in the context of the films) and obviously its more than a religion, but is there anything else? However, if you are simply finished with the topic, I respect that decision.

There is something you said that I find so incredulous that I do feel the need to say that it's just "off."

UFO wrote:

... Also, SF is known for examining the human condition in different environments. It isn't often anyone says that about fantasy, even though it may happen...

Really? I think fantasy examines the human condition quite a bit, and it is often our first way of examining the human condition and learning lessons. Ever read a children's book/fairytale? That's fantasy, and there's usually some kind of lesson to be learned about what the characters go through. From Dr. Seuss to Lord of the Rings, I think fantasy does a pretty good job of examining the human condition, and whether you notice or not, people say that a lot...

I imagine what you say is correct in the same it is about fiction general, but SF has a reputation for isolating and highlighting issues, not just by commenting on them, but by lifting them out of their everyday baggage and connections so we can see them more clearly.

If you believe fantasy has the same reputation, in that particular way, I will accept your statement, unless I hear evidence to the contrary. However it doesn't seem that fantasy is either as well equipped or as "focused" on such an activity generally.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. Like I mentioned before, we just have different views.

No need to argue. I wanted to finish stating the reasons I have for the delineation I have made. Moreover I am honestly interested in what specifically, for example, makes Star Wars (any of the six films really) fantasy rather than SF? I get that the "Force" (in isolation) is a fantasy element (though I am not certain it has to be in the context of the films) and obviously its more than a religion, but is there anything else? However, if you are simply finished with the topic, I respect that decision.

Yes, I am pretty much finished, but I will give a quick reply. This thread started out about one thing and has now moved into a Star Wars/What makes Sci-Fi discussion, lol.

I don't want to type much, so I'm going to use your description of science fiction and apply it to Star Wars.

UFO wrote:

1) If the work is supposed to be based on a scientific framework in some way then its SF (either sci-fi, hard SF or something in between.)

I would say that the framework or premise of Star Wars, although it has sci-fi elements, is the force and all 6 movies are about the ultimate goal of restoring balance to "the force." For all intents and purposes, the force is a fantasy element, and therefore the basis of the story is rooted in fantasy and not sci-fi.

You mentioned with light sabers, that someone or some theory has come along several years after the making of the first films to retroactively jimmy-rig a way for them to be a sci-fi element. Okay, but that seems like a bit of a cheat to me. Why? Because, someone could have written a book 200 years ago about a man that could walk into a room, and with the clap of his hands, there'd be light. And if that's all they say, then that's fantasy. They've provided no scientifically plausible way for this to happen. So, if somewhere down the line at the end of the 20th century the "clap-on, clap-off, The Clapper" is invented, that doesn't retroactively make that 200 year old book science fiction.

On the other hand, you can have a book like Frankenstein, where the creature/corpse is brought to life using electricity, and what do you know... the modern day use of defibrillators... That's all I'm saying.

If people want to call Star Wars science fiction, then okay. It doesn't really bother me however people want to describe it. I just know what it (all 6 movies) looked like to me. I'm not saying there was no sci-fi involved; it's just that the story wasn't told from that angle to me.

EDIT: You asked if there were other things (besides light sabers and the force), and yes, there are.

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

There is something you said that I find so incredulous that I do feel the need to say that it's just "off."

UFO wrote:

... Also, SF is known for examining the human condition in different environments. It isn't often anyone says that about fantasy, even though it may happen...

Spock/Uhura Fan wrote:

Really? I think fantasy examines the human condition quite a bit, and it is often our first way of examining the human condition and learning lessons. Ever read a children's book/fairytale? That's fantasy, and there's usually some kind of lesson to be learned about what the characters go through. From Dr. Seuss to Lord of the Rings, I think fantasy does a pretty good job of examining the human condition, and whether you notice or not, people say that a lot...

I imagine what you say is correct in the same it is about fiction general, but SF has a reputation for isolating and highlighting issues, not just by commenting on them, but by lifting them out of their everyday baggage and connections so we can see them more clearly.

If you believe fantasy has the same reputation, in that particular way, I will accept your statement, unless I hear evidence to the contrary. However it doesn't seem that fantasy is either as well equipped or as "focused" on such an activity generally.

I definitely think science fiction fans see science fiction that way. I'm not sure about everybody else. There are, I'm sure, science fiction stories that do this, but there are stories in other genres, including fantasy, that do this very well, and, in general, better. Fantasy is more accessible than sci-fi, imo, and the "everyday baggage and connections" are what people can relate to, so fantasy often can do a better job of reaching people. Sci-fi, in the way you've described it (and in the way pure sci-fi is), can come off as professorial and clinical and like it's lecturing... But different strokes for different folks.

I still say no matter what the genre, it's the storytelling that counts.

I think basically the common movie goer wants to see films that are fun and entertaining. And it just so happens that the trend in fun and entertaining films being made today are the sci-fi/fantasy/superhero films. I don't think movie goers are "huge sci-fi/fantasy fans" in common sense of the term, but instead they just like to see fun films.

That's why I do NOT think any harm is being done to this film by Abrams secrecy. The vast majority of the fans who actually care about the secrecy will see it anyway -- secrecy or no secrecy. The rest of the movie-goers (the general population of average movie fans) don't care that much about movie hype 6 months out anyway. They only say to themselves and their friends "what looks like a fun movie that we can see this week".

...And sci-fi/fantasy/superhero films usually look to be the most fun to the average movie-goer (sci-fi fan or not).

That's why I do NOT think any harm is being done to this film by Abrams secrecy. The vast majority of the fans who actually care about the secrecy will see it anyway -- secrecy or no secrecy. The rest of the movie-goers (the general population of average movie fans) don't care that much about movie hype 6 months out anyway. They only say to themselves and their friends "what looks like a fun movie that we can see this week".

...And sci-fi/fantasy/superhero films usually look to be the most fun to the average movie-goer (sci-fi fan or not).

Sounds about right to me. I suspect we sometimes overestimate of the importance of the fannish echo chamber. It's a fun way to waste time and chat among ourselves, but I doubt it has much impact on the rest of the world.

I think the conversation for the last few pages is why it's best to just look at the Genre as Speculative Fiction, rather than trying to pigeon hole it into Fantasy, SciFi, Superhero, Action/Adventure, Horror, Space Opera....

Even Pigeon Holing a story/Franchise into one of those categories, you still end up bleeding into others.

Pretty much, all of these sub-categories of Speculative Fiction have the aim to examine The Human Condition within the boundaries of the created world.

I've never heard of the "Speculative Fiction" genre before, and I'm not sure what good it does to group everything under that. To me, still, it's the storytelling that counts.

Oh, people have been throwing "Speculative Fiction" around as an alternative definition for SF since at least the seventies, and maybe even the sixties. Not sure it ever caught on outside of academic circles . . . .

I've never heard of the "Speculative Fiction" genre before, and I'm not sure what good it does to group everything under that. To me, still, it's the storytelling that counts.

Oh, people have been throwing "Speculative Fiction" around as an alternative definition for SF since at least the seventies, and maybe even the sixties. Not sure it ever caught on outside of academic circles . . . .

Oh, okay. Do you know why anyone felt the need to come up with that term? Something tells me that bookstores and iTunes aren't going to have a speculative fiction section anytime soon, especially if it's grouping a bunch of other genres together.

I've never heard of the "Speculative Fiction" genre before, and I'm not sure what good it does to group everything under that. To me, still, it's the storytelling that counts.

Oh, people have been throwing "Speculative Fiction" around as an alternative definition for SF since at least the seventies, and maybe even the sixties. Not sure it ever caught on outside of academic circles . . . .

Oh, okay. Do you know why anyone felt the need to come up with that term? Something tells me that bookstores and iTunes aren't going to have a speculative fiction section anytime soon, especially if it's grouping a bunch of other genres together.

Because of the bickering about if something is Fantasy with a bit of SciFi, or SciFi with a bit of Fantasy, or Horror with a bit of SciFi.....

Well, I can't remember who coined the term, or every critical essay I read thirty-plus years ago, but I suspect the idea was to come up with a more inclusive label that acknowledged that there was more to "science fiction" than just the whole John W. Campbell Astonishing/Analog school of nuts-and-bolts sf. There was also Bradbury and Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sturgeon and Ellison and Spinrad and Silverberg and Delany and LeGuin and Russ and so on, whose work was arguably more about the "fiction" than the "science."

Well, I can't remember who coined the term, or every critical essay I read thirty-plus years ago, but I suspect the idea was to come up with a more inclusive label that acknowledged that there was more to "science fiction" than just the whole John W. Campbell Astonishing/Analog school of nuts-and-bolts sf. There was also Bradbury and Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sturgeon and Ellison and Spinrad and Silverberg and Delany and LeGuin and Russ and so on, whose work was arguably more about the "fiction" than the "science."

I know that Ellison favored the term at least as early as the first Dangerous Visions (1968), if not before, and it's believed that the term may have been coined by Heinlein in the late 1940s.

__________________"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with
confidence, stands a good chance to deceive." — Mark Twain

Well, I can't remember who coined the term, or every critical essay I read thirty-plus years ago, but I suspect the idea was to come up with a more inclusive label that acknowledged that there was more to "science fiction" than just the whole John W. Campbell Astonishing/Analog school of nuts-and-bolts sf. There was also Bradbury and Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sturgeon and Ellison and Spinrad and Silverberg and Delany and LeGuin and Russ and so on, whose work was arguably more about the "fiction" than the "science."

I know that Ellison favored the term at least as early as the first Dangerous Visions (1968), if not before, and it's believed that the term may have been coined by Heinlein in the late 1940s.

Well, I can't remember who coined the term, or every critical essay I read thirty-plus years ago, but I suspect the idea was to come up with a more inclusive label that acknowledged that there was more to "science fiction" than just the whole John W. Campbell Astonishing/Analog school of nuts-and-bolts sf. There was also Bradbury and Edgar Rice Burroughs and Sturgeon and Ellison and Spinrad and Silverberg and Delany and LeGuin and Russ and so on, whose work was arguably more about the "fiction" than the "science."

I know that Ellison favored the term at least as early as the first Dangerous Visions (1968), if not before, and it's believed that the term may have been coined by Heinlein in the late 1940s.

That's a debate I'll leave to others, I think. The more labels and definitions people come up with, the fuzzier and more wiggly the lines get between this, that, and the other. I'm quite happy to be lazy and let it all be speculative fiction, really - that's descriptive enough for me.